tidbits-memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a new voter_id is generated if not provided, which adds some context about the tool's behavior. However, it fails to describe other key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at return values).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and follows with important context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 1 parameter with low schema coverage and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description provides basic purpose and some parameter context. However, as a tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral traits like safety or performance, making it incomplete for fully informed use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'voter_id' is optional and if omitted, a new one is generated for use in subsequent votes, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail the format or constraints of 'voter_id', leaving some gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('list of memories'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_memory' which might serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining that if 'voter_id' is not provided, a new one is generated for subsequent votes, suggesting context for when to use this parameter. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_memory' or 'create_voter_id', leaving room for ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.